Blind Faith

BA2274-001“For we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor 5:7).

Does God call people to follow Him in “blind faith?”  Does Christianity demand a “blind faith?”  At first glance, this verse might seem to imply so.

The matter of “blind faith” has much to do with the creation v. evolution debate.  After all, most Darwinians accuse Christians of having a blind faith, while they claim to be the sole possessors of evidence-based science.  Simply put, evolution is based on reason, they say, while religion is based on faith.

To fully examine this topic, however, we need to do two things.  First, we need to define “blind faith.”

Typically what we mean when we use the term “blind faith” is a dumb faith, or a belief that rests on something that simply is unreasonable, illogical, and non-evidentiary.  This kind of dumb faith is clearly not what Paul had in mind, nor does any other Bible writer.

The Apostle Peter wrote in his letter, “But set apart Christ the Lord in your hearts, always being prepared to make a defense [a reasoned argument or logical defense] to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15).

No dumb faith here.

The Apostle Paul also employed well-reasoned, logical arguments when he presented the gospel to people (Acts 17).  Luke made it a point to tell his reader that he carefully investigated all the truth claims of which he wrote in his Gospel (Luke 1:3).

So, it is obvious 2 Cor 5:7 is not a call for a dumb, blind faith in something that has no evidence or logic to it at all.  If that were the case, we would not expect the New Testament writers to go to such pains to offer eye-witness proofs of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead (1 Cor 15).  As Paul argued before King Agrippa, “for this [Jesus’ life, death and resurrection] has not been done in a corner” (Acts 26:26).  Faith in the Risen Lord Jesus is anything but dumb.  Nor is Christian faith blind.  Quite the contrary, Christians of all people have been graciously given “eyes to see” who Jesus really is (Matt 16:17).

Second, then, we need to think carefully through what Paul did mean by 2 Cor 5:7.  To that task we now turn:

  • Context, context, context!  Paul is addressing the issue of persecution and suffering among the saints at Corinth (4:16-18).  He says the motivation  to endure physical hardship is the hope of heaven, eternity, which cannot be physically seen.  (It is worth noting how at odds this is with the “health and wealth” false gospel so popular in some circles.)
  • Paul continued the line of thought into chapter 5, verses 1-5, and shifted his focus specifically to the contrast between our present physical flesh and our promised resurrection body.  He says here God actually designed us for eternal life in an incorruptible body (v. 5).  God always begins with the end in mind, doesn’t He?
  • In verses 6-8, Paul discussed the conflicting emotions of a Christian that arise from knowing so long as we remain in our physical bodies, we simply cannot be with our Lord.  This makes us long (in a weird, non-suicidal way) for death.  That is, we long for removal from this corrupted, sin-scarred life because we understand it’s the only way we’ll get to live with and “see” the Lord!
  • This, then, is what the phrase “we walk by faith, not by sight” directly refers to in this passage.  Right now, we cannot physically see God.  But one day, by grace, we will see Him.  Until then, we press on with a burning desire to please this God who we cannot presently see with our fleshly eyes.  But we do now see Him with our spiritual eyes given to us by grace through faith. 
  • Our hope is one day we will see Him just as He is, which is both a joyful and fearful thought (vv. 9-11).

So, it is clear Paul’s point is not that Christians have no good reasons to believe in God and His Christ.  Rather, his point is things that are not seen are actually more real than temporal things we can now see.

And this truth, dear friends, flies in the face of the materialism and naturalism of evolution. 

I contend it is the Darwinist that has blind faith.  Stay tuned for more reasons why I simply do not have enough faith to be a Darwinist!

Contact UsShare on FacebookTweet This

The Wages of Sin

Fitness nut Jack Lalanne died yesterday.  He was 96 and looked incredible.  Read about his death here:

It is not my intention to mock anyone’s death, or make light of the obvious grief his wife and children are experiencing right now.  My condolences to them.

When I heard the news of his death, however, it simply drove home to me in a powerful way the truth of Hebrews 9:27.

“Just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment.”

And 1 Timothy 4:8.

   “For while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.”

Friends, at this time of the year when we bow down to the idols of the NFL, when Christian parents push their children into sports as hard as they can go, when young adults bronze their bodies in salons at the risk of deadly cancers, when Christian beach bums lay nearly naked on vacation hot spots, at this time, we need to be reminded . . .

“The wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23).

God has appointed a day for our death.  While I am not encouraging laziness or abuse of our physical bodies through negligence or gluttony, the point is clear.  Isn’t it? 

Jack Lalanne is dead.  I hope and pray his soul was in as good a shape as his body (3 John 2).  Nothing else matters now, except Jesus, or the conspicuous absence of Jesus, in the fitness guru’s life. 

We ought to think on these things, beloved.

Contact UsShare on FacebookTweet This

The Early Earth

In the beginning“Your science class is going on a field trip, but this trip is a little out of the ordinary.  You’re going to travel back billions  of years to the earliest days on earth . . . Enter the time machine and strap yourself in . . . a dial on the dashboard shows the number of years before the present.  You stare at the dial – it reads 4.6 billion years” (Science Explorer, Pearson Prentice Hall, 8th Grade textbook, p. 338).

Thus begins the section in the public school textbook titled “Early Earth.”

The kids reading this fantasy are more likely  to actually hop in a time machine and strap themselves in than they are to find solid proof of anything stated in this entire chapter!  I do not even know where to begin to critique this section of the text being foisted on our children (assuming your children are in state run schools).  I have already pointed out that this section begins by refuting the premise already stated in the same textbook concerning the definition of “hypothesis.”  Even though the first chapter laid down the law that a hypothesis must be testable, the rest of the book keeps using the term in contradictory ways.  So much for scholarship.  (See my previous post, “Weeping in the New Year.”)

Let me quote some stuff from this section:

“How do sceintists know the age of Earth?  Using radioactive dating, scientists have determined that the oldest rocks ever found on Earth are about 4 billion years old . . . According to this hypothesis [misuse of the word again] Earth and moon are about the same age.  When Earth was very young, it collided with a large object.  The collision threw a large amount of material from both bodies into orbit around the Earth.  This material combined to form the moon.  Scientists have dated moon rocks that were brought to Earth by astronauts during the 1970s.  Radioactive dating shows that the oldest moon rocks are about 4.6 billion years old.  Scientists infer that Earth is also roughly 4.6 billion years old – only a little older than those moon rocks” (pp. 338-9).

OK, there is so much trash and non-sense in that one paragraph that it is mind boggling.  Let’s see . . .

  • Scientists “know” the age of the earth by radioactive dating?  Are you speaking of the dating method that has proven horribly inconsistent and inaccurate time and again?  The same method that says rocks exploded from Mt. St. Helens in the early 1980s are ridiculously old?
  • Dr. Andrew Snelling in a lecture this past summer pointed out that 90% of the dating methods available to scientists indicate the earth is young.  But, Darwinian scientists choose to use only those methods (10%) that typically render a “billions of years” verdict.
  • The only thing scientists can “know” about radioactive dating is it stinks as a scientific tool.  Why?  Because it assumes “the present is the key to the past,” a principle spread by Charles Lyell (Darwin’s mentor) that stated that if we observe slow processes today, that’s how things have always been.  There are tons of scientists (many even non-Christian) who now call that theory into question.  Why?  Because the EVIDENCE of past global catastrophe’s is strong, to put it mildly.  Large-scale cataclysms wreak havoc on any “radioactive clocks.”
  • I like how things are stated in the textbook so “matter of factly.”  Like, “When Earth was very young, it collided with a large object.”  And we know this how?
  • While the text makes sure to tell students about scientists’ dating moon rocks to 4.6 billion years old, it does not bother to relay the little factoid to students concerning the “surprise” NASA received when Armstrong set foot on the moon.  You see, many Darwinian scientists who assumed the moon was billions of years old assumed there would be a big, thich layer of dust on the moon.  They knew, based on their present observations, that exposure to the sun destroys rock layers and makes them into dust at few ten-thousandths of an inch per year.  At this rate, the billions of years old moon may very well have had a dust covering a few miles deep!  Armstrong was actually quite concerned about that “one small step for man.”  Would he step off the module and instantly be buried alive in moon dust?  But alas, there was not much dust at all on the moon . . .whew!  Calculations showed there were only a few thousand years of dust accumulation on the moon (Douglas F. Kelly, Creation and Change, Mentor Books, 1997, p. 150-1).
  • So, why so little dust?  Why the HUGE discrepancy between the radioactive dating and the dust accumulation methods?  More importantly, why are students not being told these things in their textbooks
  • I also like how they imply all scientists are in universal agreement on these matters of origins and dates!

Friends of Christ, the issues with this one little paragraph in a school “science” text are myriad.  The paragraph I cited above is totally incompatible with the Bible’s account of creation.  For example, the textbook assumes materials were already present before earth formed, asserting, “Scientists think that Earth began as a ball of dust, rock, and ice in space.  Gravity pulled this mass together” (p. 339).  The Bible says God created the whole universe out of nothing.  God did not need nor did He use pre-existing matter to create all that is or ever will be.  The textbook further claims the sun was in existence prior to formation of Earth (p. 339).  The Bible teaches God made the sun after the earth (Genesis 1:1-2, 16).  The list goes on.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too in this matter.  The Bible and this Onslow County public school textbook are diametrically opposed. 

Students of America – cry out!

Parents of America – cry out!

Public school teachers of America – cry out!

As for me and my house, we will take our view of origins from the only One who was there:

“In the beginning God . . .”           

Contact UsShare on FacebookTweet This

facebook - i love it

Ken Ham and The ARK Encounter

ArkAnswers in Genesis, led by Ken Ham, is causing quite a stir in the ranks of atheism, secularism, Darwinism, and sadly Christianity, with the announcement that they are planning to build an exact replica of Noah’s Ark.

If Noah’s flood is a myth, why do Darwinists care so much about this theme park scheduled to open in 2017? I don’t hear any evolutionists or Popes or Christians getting frothy at the mouth about all the secular, mythological theme parks already in existence. (You do realize the Castle at Disney World is mythological, don’t you?). Nobody wrote disparaging remarks in popular newspapers when “The Wizarding World of Harry Potter” debuted!

Ah, friends, “we wrestle not against flesh and blood.”

The accusations made against Ken Ham and The ARK Encounter are outrageous. Three professors essentially blame him for our children’s poor math and science performances!  But wait a minute, I thought what our children are being taught in public schools is Darwinism, not Biblical Creation!  How can something that has not been allowed in classrooms in many decades be the reason for our students’ dismal aptitude?

I cannot say it better than Ken Ham, so please click Here and read his blog to see his rebuttal.

Contact UsShare on FacebookTweet This

An Undefiled Marriage Bed

“Let marriage be held in high honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous” (Hebrews 13:4).

Sports build character.


If sports icons like Brett Favre and Andre Agassi are any indication of the morality and character produced by sports, parents are well-advised to keep their children out of sports and away from the lockerrooms. 

Favre’s “sexting” scandal was not really considered truly scandalous by most of the media outlets or the typical sports fans or the NFL.  We’re calloused to it by now, aren’t we? 

I wonder if Ms. Favre is calloused to it?  And his children?  Grandchild?  Nothing to inspire pride in a grandpa like knowing he sends nude photos of himself to some random woman, huh?!

And now, add Andre Agassi to the ever-growing list of the maritally-challenged.  According to Fox Sports ( Agassi offered to show a nude photo of his wife to the highest bidder at an auction.  I’m sure it was all for charity, which of course justifies it.


In the end, Agassi ended up selling out his wife, and possibly his own soul, for $4000

Men of God, Dads, brothers and sons, rise up and renounce this puny, fake, filthy excuse for manhood!  Do not allow your sons and daughters to become sports idolaters.  Sports heroes will inevitably let them down, and apparently will also lead them to glamorize defiling their marriage beds.

Defiling a marriage is an ugly thing.  Agassi welcomed another man into his private sanctuary, his marriage bed, when he “showed off” his wife’s nude body.  Favre, too invited another woman into the sacred chamber which should have been exclusively reserved for his marriage. 

Men and women, God does not look kindly into allowing a third party into our marriages, be it by way of simple interference / split allegiance, or by way of sexual immorality / infidelity.  (The only third party we should desire in our marriages is Christ Himself, and He belongs in the center, first place.) 

Friends, The Judge is coming one day.  Only one way to resolve defecating on your own marriage bed . . .

“Repent and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15).  Renounce your sexual sin and filth and cry out for mercy to Jesus who never defiled anything ever, period. 

And lest some of us get high-minded here, let’s not forget the words of the God-man, Jesus: “I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt 5:28).

Forgive me, O Lord.  I plead the blood of Jesus over all my sins.  Give me grace to hate the stain of sexual immorality.  Give me courage and strength as a man to honor my wife and never invite, by any means whatsoever, another human partner into the sacred relationship you have given me with my wife.  Lord, please heal broken marriages today.  Please grant repentance to that man or woman who has invited someone else into their marriage.  Help them give that 3rd party the boot swiftly!  Restore the joy of sacrificial love to them.  In Jesus’ Name. 

Contact UsShare on FacebookTweet This
T r u t h